The world is insane

[lalmvpkobe]

Not sure where to put this, but;

If I have a mailbox, but there is no proof, then do I not have a mailbox? Or, does me providing evidence I do have a mailbox, does it then make it existant? If so, doesn't that make the logic behind something that exists has always existed? Or evidence prove it to be existent to others?

I love you.

 

Nothing has inherent value. It only has value in relation to those who value it. Does this mean the value isn't real? That's debatable. The point is that money is accepted by many parties as goods that those parties are willing to trade for practically anything.

Obviously the fact that something has value to someone does not make that something real. Think about all the mindless christians who value their non-existent god over all other things. Think about people who value the state over their lives, and die for such nonsense in meaningless wars.

If you want proof of this value I could take a picture of a receipt, describing exchange of groceries for money, as you've already shown that this is one of the few things you'll accept as evidence.

There have always been common mediums of exchange. This however has no bearing on the validity of the claim that 'the dollar', or any other fiat currency, actually exists. My hypothesis, as with all things listed in the original post, is that these are fictional entities and the only 'evidence' anyone is going to be able to provide for their existence is that other people also believe they exist.

Also to address the argument in a couple of posts that "love, value, etc doesn't exist" -- yeah those 'things' don't exist. They should not be nouns, and in so far as they are, they tend to be used in a kind of word-play fiction. It is only correct to use these terms in the context of their derivation from real concepts. (Concepts that map directly to real things.)

Really these words do not describe real things, they are attributes, not the entities themselves. Love isn't a thing; It is an emotion, a mental state. Value is not a thing, it is a class of subjectively assigned attribute to a thing. If one talks about "value in general", one is referring to the class of attribute. -- The approximate mental state one can expect if an experiment measuring 'value' is repeated enough times.

This really gets into ontology -- a field many philosophers have really failed to arrive at good arguments in. I have what I believe is a strong argument to make the case against the incorrect use of derivative concepts, but I will post it later.

 

[cain121]

Sythe iv'e never looked at it this way. Man thats really strong.

 

[Schnell]

Obviously the fact that something has value to someone does not make that something real. Think about all the mindless christians who value their non-existent god over all other things. Think about people who value the state over their lives, and die for such nonsense in meaningless wars.

There have always been common mediums of exchange. This however has no bearing on the validity of the claim that 'the dollar', or any other fiat currency, actually exists. My hypothesis, as with all things listed in the original post, is that these are fictional entities and the only 'evidence' anyone is going to be able to provide for their existence is that other people also believe they exist.

Also to address the argument in a couple of posts that "love, value, etc doesn't exist" -- yeah those 'things' don't exist. They should not be nouns, and in so far as they are, they tend to be used in a kind of word-play fiction. It is only correct to use these terms in the context of their derivation from real concepts. (Concepts that map directly to real things.)

Really these words do not describe real things, they are attributes, not the entities themselves. Love isn't a thing; It is an emotion, a mental state. Value is not a thing, it is a class of subjectively assigned attribute to a thing. If one talks about "value in general", one is referring to the class of attribute. -- The approximate mental state one can expect if an experiment measuring 'value' is repeated enough times.

This really gets into ontology -- a field many philosophers have really failed to arrive at good arguments in. I have what I believe is a strong argument to make the case against the incorrect use of derivative concepts, but I will post it later.

We basically agree here, I'm just trying to point out the positive about some of these concepts, since you make them out to be completely negative.

 

[Sephiroth]

In my opinion it seems that you merely don't believe in the existence of anything, and even though you are very conclusive in what you've stated and you have good evidence, I really do not see why it matters to you to be that way. Whether you believe in it or not, it still is around you. It surronds you and you find yourself just trying to prove it isn't real.

Sure the value of a dollar is fictional and assigned by man, thus making it not "real" per se, but it is still there. it still lies in your wallet, it still leaves your hand when you go buy a soda. Real or not it IS there. So who is to say what IS and IS not real? You honestly think that by you not believing it is real is just going to make it disappear?? No sir, it won't. So therefore, it is indeed real. By definition of course, but in another sense it is as well. Real: something you see,touch,feel,hear,smell. The common senses MAKE these things real.

Burden of Proof? Lol, this statement makes me laugh because you see in your eyes, you could take solid, strong piece of evidence and put it in front of you, and I could gurantee you that you would say "Well, your proof isn't real unless you can prove that THIS proof is real, then I will believe that what our original debate was about was 'real'" Because WHAT IS real, Richard? Please entertain me. Because you could tell me something is real, and back it up with your supporting evidence, but how do you know it truely IS real. (Disregarding your proof).

Couldn't you agree that when we die, it doesn't even matter anyways? According to you, we lie in the dirt, rot and return to the Earth's soil. All is in vain, eh?

Now on another note, you know that you call it insane, but really what IS sane? Because we wage wars, we depend on ink printed paper called "money", we eat food we know will kill us, we inject heroin into our bloodstream, we murder other humans. "Burden of Proof" is now on you to tell me what IS sane. We've spent our entire lives doing what we are taught, as we see, as we hear, and to us that is sane. It is right. BUt, yet again, (taking Deacon's outlook) does it even matter?? We die. End of story. End of everything. So simple, you know, when we lie in our own blood, comforting the cold roses over our empty bodies.

So, the fallacy really is the fact that you don't accept it. Acceptance. Existence or not, it doesn't matter. Insanity? Maybe so. Either way, we live on, we age, and we fall peacefully into our caskets.

 

[wombakage]

Universal healthcare isn't a tangible thing. Is obvious. If you are saying it doesn't do anything, that is different. It seems that you are so intent on stripping away any lies, that you have lost the ability to trust in others. Please don't call me innocent, or gullible, etc etc

 

In my opinion it seems that you merely don't believe in the existence of anything, and even though you are very conclusive in what you've stated and you have good evidence, I really do not see why it matters to you to be that way. Whether you believe in it or not, it still is around you. It surronds you and you find yourself just trying to prove it isn't real.

To clarify your statement, you agree it doesn't exist then you claim 'it's all around you.' Well the thing is, it can't be all around me if it doesn't exist.

What *IS* all around me are crazy people who believe in fictional entities and are quite willing to do violence against me in the name of said fictional entities. I would rather not live in a world full of crazy people. I think we would agree about this.

Sure the value of a dollar is fictional and assigned by man, thus making it not "real" per se, but it is still there. it still lies in your wallet, it still leaves your hand when you go buy a soda. Real or not it IS there. So who is to say what IS and IS not real? You honestly think that by you not believing it is real is just going to make it disappear?? No sir, it won't. So therefore, it is indeed real. By definition of course, but in another sense it is as well. Real: something you see,touch,feel,hear,smell. The common senses MAKE these things real.

Firstly, 'the dollar' is a fictional counterfeit. It's not real money, its fake, fictional money. No greater validity than runescape GP, except that it is 'issued' by people with guns.

Secondly, it is not 'a dollar' you hold, but a piece of paper, like any other piece of paper. The piece of paper used to be a receipt for something physical, gold and silver typically. Now it's a receipt for another piece of paper. The currency is fictional. Everyone is just swapping bits of paper at the point of a gun. So no, it is not a valid or morally tolerable substitute, especially considering that it's issuance was instituted via fraud.

Burden of Proof? Lol, this statement makes me laugh because you see in your eyes, you could take solid, strong piece of evidence and put it in front of you, and I could gurantee you that you would say "Well, your proof isn't real unless you can prove that THIS proof is real, then I will believe that what our original debate was about was 'real'" Because WHAT IS real, Richard? Please entertain me. Because you could tell me something is real, and back it up with your supporting evidence, but how do you know it truely IS real. (Disregarding your proof).

This is really just a straw-man argument. We both have the same criteria for valid real evidence, except that I do not accept as evidence "the fact that other people also believe it." If this fact is documented on pieces of paper -- well so what? Does that improve it's validity?


I already gave you the mailbox example. I'll give you another example. The server from which the electric signals constituting the text you are now reading emanate, exists. This is my claim. My evidence is that the server has an IP, one can connect to that IP, and one can download page content from that IP given a standard HTTP request. This is all perfectly demonstrable, experimentally verifiable, and constitutes sound and valid evidence. If one doubts the carrying of a signal to another destination where the server is housed, one can actually go to said destination and see their same message as it arrives at the server, and see the server itself.

Couldn't you agree that when we die, it doesn't even matter anyways? According to you, we lie in the dirt, rot and return to the Earth's soil. All is in vain, eh?

Now on another note, you know that you call it insane, but really what IS sane? Because we wage wars, we depend on ink printed paper called "money", we eat food we know will kill us, we inject heroin into our bloodstream, we murder other humans. "Burden of Proof" is now on you to tell me what IS sane. We've spent our entire lives doing what we are taught, as we see, as we hear, and to us that is sane. It is right. BUt, yet again, (taking Deacon's outlook) does it even matter?? We die. End of story. End of everything. So simple, you know, when we lie in our own blood, comforting the cold roses over our empty bodies.

Ramblings...
Sanity:

• The condition of being sane; Reasonable and rational behaviour; ability to get what you want without doing things that will ultimately get you more of what you don’t want
• sane - reasonable: marked by sound judgment; "sane nuclear policy"
• normal or sound powers of mind

So, the fallacy really is the fact that you don't accept it. Acceptance. Existence or not, it doesn't matter. Insanity? Maybe so. Either way, we live on, we age, and we fall peacefully into our caskets.

Well so what? Feel free to assign nil value to your life and your offspring, such that 'none of it matters', but don't try to spread your nihilism to others.

Universal healthcare isn't a tangible thing. Is obvious. If you are saying it doesn't do anything, that is different. It seems that you are so intent on stripping away any lies, that you have lost the ability to trust in others. Please don't call me innocent, or gullible, etc etc

People who erroneously believe it exists steal money and support chattel slavery in its name. You don't think it's worth bringing such a major oversight into the minds of it's followers?

 

[wombakage]

People who erroneously believe it exists steal money and support chattel slavery in its name. You don't think it's worth bringing such a major oversight into the minds of it's followers?

I think you are dramatizing the evils of the system. I'm just so confused as to what we are arguing about at this point

 

I think you are dramatizing the evils of the system. I'm just so confused as to what we are arguing about at this point

Taxation is theft, and income taxation is chattel slavery.

Public healthcare is funded through violence and enforced via violence.

 

[wombakage]

Where is the violence? You've said that numerous times. Would you use violence to enforce your liberty?

Honestly are you a social darwinist?

 

Where is the violence? You've said that numerous times.

Skip back to page 1,2 where this was already debated. If you have any further arguments to bring which weren't already covered, please bring them now.

Would you use violence to enforce your liberty?

This is a misnomer. Liberty is the absence of the initiation of force. By definition liberty cannot be brought at the point of a gun.

Honestly are you a social darwinist?

No, and that would have no relevance to the claims.

 

[Acidman]

That sounds like a pretty clear statement of the facts to me.

I agree, seems to be working for Mao.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

Where is the violence? You've said that numerous times. Would you use violence to enforce your liberty?

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but perhaps a new voice explaining it might help?

The violence is in the funding method, taxes - "pay or you go to jail", in essence. Violence is also used to keep the government as a monopoly.

 

[normalcy]

Sythe, your opinion is that there is no god and anyone who is religious is mindless. Don't act like it's a fact and try to fool people.

 

Sythe, your opinion is that there is no god and anyone who is religious is mindless. Don't act like it's a fact and try to fool people.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what my opinion may or may not be. If you claim god exists, then you must provide evidence to substantiate your claim. If not, then it is just opinion, and does not belong in a rational discourse.

What are the facts? Show me the evidence.

 

[normalcy]

Both of us have opinions. Your opinion is that a god doesn't exist. My opinion is that God does exist. Neither of us can prove our respective opinions, and they are what they are: opinions. If your opinion belongs in this discourse, then mine will too.

 

Both of us have opinions. Your opinion is that a god doesn't exist. My opinion is that God does exist. Neither of us can prove our respective opinions, and they are what they are: opinions. If your opinion belongs in this discourse, then mine will too.

Have you read any of this thread?

I can prove that a rational 'god' doesn't exist, via the omnipotence contradiction, and if 'god' isn't rational then you cannot reason about him in a rational debate.

Your claim that this is merely opinion is unsubstantiated. I offer, in my defense, the entire body of the arguments presented in this thread and its sister thread "God does not exist."

If you would like to debate any of these arguments, or actually present some evidence to substantiate your claim, then go right ahead.

 

[normalcy]

There has to be a start to everything. Omnipotence contradictions makes some good points, but there has to be a starting point.

 

There has to be a start to everything. Omnipotence contradictions makes some good points, but there has to be a starting point.

This is your argument? Ok what is your evidence that there 'must be a starting point' to everything?

 

[normalcy]

How is anything here. Evolution you say? There had to be something to evolve from if you claim evolution. Something had to be created.